וְהָי֨וּ לָכֶ֧ם הֶעָרִ֛ים לְמִקְלָ֖ט מִגֹּאֵ֑ל וְלֹ֤א יָמוּת֙ הָרֹצֵ֔חַ עַד־עָמְד֛וֹ לִפְנֵ֥י הָעֵדָ֖ה לַמִּשְׁפָּֽט׃
Kota-kota itu akan menjadi tempat perlindungan bagimu dari penuntut balas darah, supaya orang yang membunuh itu tidak mati sebelum ia dihadapkan kepada jemaah untuk diadili.
Ramban
AND THESE ARE THE ORDINANCES WHICH THOU SHALT SET BEFORE THEM. The reason [why this whole section dealing with mishpatim — civil laws — is placed here, rather than being placed after the chukim — statutes — as is the order in the commandments given at Marah],1Above, 15:25: There He made for them ‘chock’ (a statute) ‘umishpat’ (and an ordinance). The “statutes” are the precepts for which the reasons are generally unknown. See Vol. I, p. 331. is that G-d wanted to explain to them first the civil laws. Thus we find that the first of the Ten Commandments dealt with the obligation of knowing of the existence of G-d, and the second one with the prohibition against idolatry, after which [following the giving of the Ten Commandments] He again instructed Moses, saying, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: Ye yourselves have seen that I have talked with you from heaven,2Above, 20:19. meaning that you, [Moses] should warn them again to take to heart that which they have seen, so that they will be careful to keep these precepts which I have commanded them. For Ye yourselves have seen corresponds to the commandment, I am the Eternal thy G-d;3Ibid., Verse 2. Ye shall not make with Me — gods of silver etc.4Ibid., Verse 20. — corresponds with Thou shalt have no other gods,5Ibid., Verse 3. thereby completing the subject of idolatry; likewise, And these are the ordinances corresponds to Thou shalt not covet,6Ibid., Verse 14. for if a man does not know the laws of house and field or other possessions, he might think that they belong to him and thus covet them and take them for himself. This is why He said, thou shalt set before them just ordinances, which they should establish amongst themselves, so that they will not covet that which does not legally belong to them. And thus did the Rabbis say in Midrash Rabbah:7Shemoth Rabbah 30:15. “The whole Torah depends on justice; that is why the Holy One, blessed be He, gave the civil laws directly after the Ten Commandments.” Similarly G-d explains in this section of These are the ordinances additional laws about idolatry,8Further, 22:19. the honor of parents,9Further, Verses 15 and 17. murder,10Ibid., Verses 12-14. and adultery11Ibid., 22:15-16. — which are all mentioned in the Ten Commandments.
The Rabbis have explained:12Tanchuma Mishpatim, 6. “Before them, but not before the Canaanites.” This interpretation is based on the observation that it should have said, “which tasim lahem” (“thou shalt set for them”) just as He said, There ‘sam lo’ (He set for them) a statute and an ordinance;13Above, 15:25. thus since He said, which thou shalt set ‘liphneihem’ (before them), we interpret this to mean that they should be the judges, for it is with reference to a judge that this term [liphnei (before)] appears in Scripture: And both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Eternal, ‘liphnei’ (before) the priests and the judges;14Deuteronomy 19:17. Until he stand ‘liphnei’ (before) the congregation for judgment;15Numbers 35:12. ‘liphnei’ (before) all who know law and judgment.16Esther 1:13. The Rabbis further explained: “Before them, but not before laymen.” They interpreted [the verse in this way] because with reference to the ordinances it is written: Then his master shall bring him unto ‘ha’elohim;’17Further, Verse 6. the cause of both parties shall come before ‘ha’elohim;’18Ibid., 22:8. and it is also written, and he shall give ‘biphlilim’ (as the judges determine)19Further, Verse 22. — these terms referring to judges who are experts in the law, and who had received ordination20The process of investiture with judicial rights and functions. Ordination was conferred by three Sages, only one of whom himself had to be duly ordained. Ordination was valid only if both the ordainers and the ordained were in the Land of Israel. Once received in the Land of Israel, however, the authority of ordination became effective outside the Land as well. [in an unbroken chain from the time of those who had been duly ordained] by Moses our Teacher. This is why He said here that these ordinances are to be set before them, meaning before the elohim [expert, ordained judges] that He will mention further on, but not before Canaanites, and not before one who is not a judge by the standard of the Torah, such as a layman in this respect. It is forbidden to appear before such a person to act as a judge, just as it is forbidden to bring it before the Canaanites, even if he knows that this layman knows the correct law and will render him a proper decision. Even so it is forbidden for the litigant to set him up as a judge and complain before him so that he orders the other party to come to court before him, and the layman himself is also forbidden to act as their judge. Now even though the Sages have mentioned these two groups [the layman and the Canaanite] together, there is a difference between them, in that if the two litigants are willing to come before an Israelite who is a layman, and accept him upon themselves, it is permissible for them to do so, and they must abide by his decision, but to come before the Canaanites to act as judges between them, is forbidden under all circumstances, even if the Canaanite laws are in that particular case the same as our laws.
The Rabbis have explained:12Tanchuma Mishpatim, 6. “Before them, but not before the Canaanites.” This interpretation is based on the observation that it should have said, “which tasim lahem” (“thou shalt set for them”) just as He said, There ‘sam lo’ (He set for them) a statute and an ordinance;13Above, 15:25. thus since He said, which thou shalt set ‘liphneihem’ (before them), we interpret this to mean that they should be the judges, for it is with reference to a judge that this term [liphnei (before)] appears in Scripture: And both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Eternal, ‘liphnei’ (before) the priests and the judges;14Deuteronomy 19:17. Until he stand ‘liphnei’ (before) the congregation for judgment;15Numbers 35:12. ‘liphnei’ (before) all who know law and judgment.16Esther 1:13. The Rabbis further explained: “Before them, but not before laymen.” They interpreted [the verse in this way] because with reference to the ordinances it is written: Then his master shall bring him unto ‘ha’elohim;’17Further, Verse 6. the cause of both parties shall come before ‘ha’elohim;’18Ibid., 22:8. and it is also written, and he shall give ‘biphlilim’ (as the judges determine)19Further, Verse 22. — these terms referring to judges who are experts in the law, and who had received ordination20The process of investiture with judicial rights and functions. Ordination was conferred by three Sages, only one of whom himself had to be duly ordained. Ordination was valid only if both the ordainers and the ordained were in the Land of Israel. Once received in the Land of Israel, however, the authority of ordination became effective outside the Land as well. [in an unbroken chain from the time of those who had been duly ordained] by Moses our Teacher. This is why He said here that these ordinances are to be set before them, meaning before the elohim [expert, ordained judges] that He will mention further on, but not before Canaanites, and not before one who is not a judge by the standard of the Torah, such as a layman in this respect. It is forbidden to appear before such a person to act as a judge, just as it is forbidden to bring it before the Canaanites, even if he knows that this layman knows the correct law and will render him a proper decision. Even so it is forbidden for the litigant to set him up as a judge and complain before him so that he orders the other party to come to court before him, and the layman himself is also forbidden to act as their judge. Now even though the Sages have mentioned these two groups [the layman and the Canaanite] together, there is a difference between them, in that if the two litigants are willing to come before an Israelite who is a layman, and accept him upon themselves, it is permissible for them to do so, and they must abide by his decision, but to come before the Canaanites to act as judges between them, is forbidden under all circumstances, even if the Canaanite laws are in that particular case the same as our laws.
Rav Hirsch
בכלי דעת: es darf ihm der Gedanke einer Tötung überhaupt nicht gegenwärtig gewesen sein, פרט למתכוין להרוג את הבהמה והרג את האדם, hat er aber z. B. ein Tier töten wollen und hat einen dabeistehenden Menschen getötet, so ist dies eine sträfliche Unvorsichtigkeit, ist קרוב למזיד, und findet seine Sühne nicht durch Galut (Makkot 7b; – siehe תוספו׳ B. K. 26b ד׳׳ה פרט; – vergl. Bamidbar daselbst).
Rashi
Just as the owner [is sentenced to death] only in his presence - as is written, "unless he has stood trial before the assembly" [Numbers 35:12].